A. Create a Research Design: An explicit
research design should govern all archaeological work, especially Phase II and
III investigations. This design or plan should ask questions regarding the
justification and legitimacy of the proposed field work, what is to be gained
from this work prior to going into the field, and what techniques will be
employed to complete the task. Furthermore, the research design should reflect
the needs of the sponsor, such as how much area to look at and how much and
what kinds of data to record (Davis 1982:B-5).
In addition, each archaeologist must submit a scope of work
to MDAH-SHPO for comment prior to conducting Phase I cultural resource surveys
of 200 hectares (500 acres) or more. The proposed scope of work must also be
submitted to MDAH-SHPO for comment before conducting any Phase II or III
investigations. These documents should specify the types of cultural resources
known or anticipated to be in the projects area of potential effects, the field
and/or archival techniques proposed, the projected number of field personnel
required for the project, and the estimated time in the field.
B. Conduct Literature
Review/Records Check: Prior to investigations of submerged cultural resources,
historical and archaeological records, literature (e.g.,
Ways Packet
Directory, 1848-1994), and archival sources should be examined to
provide a cultural/historical context for the study area, and to identify
previously recorded archaeological or historical properties in or near the
project area. The following is a brief list of sources maintained by MDAH-SHPO
that should be consulted prior to conducting Phase I, II, and III submerged
cultural resources investigations:
1.
Mississippi Archaeological Site File (contains information on known
sites)
2. Archaeological Maps (15
and 7.5 USGS Topographic Quadrangles), which contain information on known site
locations, previous cultural resource surveys, etc.
3. Cultural Resources Survey reports and
other applicable literature, such as H.P. Owens Steamboats and the
Cotton Economy, Mississippi Archaeology, Louisiana
Archaeology, Journal of Alabama Archaeology, Tennessee Anthropologist,
Southeastern Archaeology, American Antiquity, etc.
4. Archaeological Subject File (supplemental
data to recorded sites, such as artifact illustrations and photographs, site
maps, newspaper articles, correspondence, etc.).
5. Deeds, Historic Maps, and Aerial
Photographs.
6. National Register
of Historic Places Files.
C. Recordation:
1. Field notes should be maintained during
the entire investigation and for all aspects of the project. If possible, all
notes should be written or copied onto acid-free paper.
2. Significant archaeological sites and
prominent features (e.g., shipwrecks, docking facilities) with good visibility
(e.g., low tide; clear water) should be photographed with color and black and
white film. Although most black and white film types are fairly stable, most
color films are not. Due to color films instability and short life expectancy,
archaeologists are strongly encouraged to use Kodachrome film when
photodocumenting the site and research for the permanent record. All
photographs should be printed with a standard finish, such as matte, glossy, or
satin and should be at least 31/2 x 5 inches. Each photograph should be labeled
with a permanent audio-visual marking pen or pencil. Adhesive labels should not
be used on photographs because the labels can become detached. All original
photos, negatives, and transparencies should be included with the curated
materials. Digital images, regardless of the media, are not appropriate for the
permanent record. For further advice concerning photographing significant
archaeological sites refer to National Register Bulletin 16A (How to
Complete the National Register Form and National Register), 20
(Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of
Historic Places), 23 (How to Improve the Quality of Photos for
National Register Nominations).
3. Maps and scaled drawings of the project
area and recorded anomalies should be maintained throughout the investigation.
This is particularly important since many submerged cultural resources in
Mississippi can not be photodocumented due to poor visibility associated with
water turbidity.
D.
Phase I:
1. Submerged Cultural Resources
Survey: The overall goal of a Phase I submerged cultural resources survey is to
locate and evaluate archaeological resources within the projects area of
potential effects. During this phase of research, archaeologists need to
recover sufficient information to determine whether further investigations at
the site/s is necessary to address National Register eligibility. Specific
objectives of the Phase I submerged cultural resources survey include:
a. a review and search of the archaeological
and historical records pertaining to the general project area;
b. a field inspection and complete Phase I
survey to determine the presence, nature and degree of integrity, if possible,
of archaeological remains within the projects area of potential effect;
and
c. an evaluation of the
potential impact of the project on the identified archaeological
resources.
2. Fieldwork
Guidelines: The areas surveyed and the methodologies employed should be decided
on an individual project basis. The following list, however, provides basic
guidelines that should assist the archaeologist in retrieving adequate
information:
a. General:
i. Each submerged and visible watercraft, as
well as other cultural resources (e.g., bridges, structures) identified in the
projects area of potential effects, should be recorded and preliminarily
evaluated as to its National Register eligibility.
ii. Due to varying levels of survey
complexity often associated with riverine and marine environments, such as
water depths and poor visibility, remote-sensing technologies should be used.
Remote-sensing technologies should include, but not be limited to, systematic
magnetometer survey, bathymetric or fathometer survey, and side-scan sonar. All
instrument data should be recorded in concert with a Differential Global
Positioning System (GPS).
iii. A
magnetometer survey will detect most anomalies in the projects area of
potential effects. Archaeologists will need to conduct more detailed systematic
magnetic surveys for all anomalies thought to be potentially significant.
Analyses of the initial and more detailed magnetic surveys should provide the
principal investigator with enough information to determine the identity of the
anomaly and the potential for further testing.
iv. If it is determined that additional
testing of an anomaly is needed/required, then a side-scan sonar should be
employed to enable the principal investigator to make a more precise
determination regarding the anomalys National Register potential. Side-scan
sonar may be excluded from use when field conditions prohibit or dictate
otherwise. In these instances, a justification for not using side-scan sonar
must be discussed in the report. It is important that all generated data
(side-scan sonar, magnetometer, etc.) be correlated in order to produce as
accurate a survey result as possible.
v. Systematic water jet probing from the deck
of the survey boat or adjacent banklines should be conducted to determine the
location and extent of all identified submerged watercraft and other
potentially significant underwater resources.
vi. All exposed watercraft elements should be
fully recorded to the extent possible with a detailed discussion provided in
the report.
vii. Survey and site/s
locations must be depicted on 7.5 USGS topographic maps.
b. Magnetometer, Bathymetric/Fathometer:
Magnetometer and Bathymetric/Fathometer are remote sensing instruments that
produce survey data capable of being downloaded into a computer database. There
are two types of magnetometers currently used in the field of underwater
research, a proton precession magnetometer and a cesium magnetometer. The
proton precession magnetometer is probably sufficient for the Phase I cultural
resource survey. Data collected from the magnetometer survey should be of
sufficient precision and quality to allow for interpretations.
c. Side-Scan Sonar: Archaeologists are
encouraged to use as high a frequency side-scan sonar as possible, such as 500
kHz. Higher frequencies produce superior resolutions thereby allowing for
better identification and interpretation of targets. While lower frequency
side-scan sonars, such as 100 kHz, can produce good results, they do not
produce the high quality results higher frequency side-scan sonars do. Again,
archaeologists are encouraged to utilize a side-scan sonar capable of recording
data that can be down loaded into a computer database (note: some side-scan
sonars are equipped with video monitors, but are incapable of storing the
generated data).
d. Positioning
Systems: A positioning system should be incorporated into all submerged
cultural resources surveys, so archaeologists can easily map and relocate any
targets encountered. To ensure precision during the remote sensing survey a +-5
meter variance in positioning data is suggested. In order to achieve this
accuracy, the archaeologist should use either an on-shore total station or a
Differential (or corrected) Global Positioning System (GPS). The on-shore total
station may be more practical and feasible if: the survey area is limited in
scope, the line of sight between shore and survey vessel is good, and/or there
is a single target involved.
e.
Remote Sensing Survey:
i. Transect lane
spacing should not exceed 30 meters (100 feet).
ii. Positioning control points should be
obtained at least every 30 meters (100 feet) along transects.
iii. Background noise for the magnetometer
data should not exceed +-3 gammas.
iv. Magnetic data should be recorded on the
100 gamma scale.
v. The
magnetometer sensor should be towed a minimum of 2.5 times the length of the
boat or projected in front of the survey vessel to avoid vessel
noise.
vi. The survey should
utilize the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system when providing site
and feature locations.
vii.
Additional, more tightly spaced transects should be run over all potentially
significant anomalies.
viii.
Differential GPS survey control should be used to determine the exact locations
of the magnetic anomalies or exposed watercraft.
f. Survey Intervals:
i. Although interval spacing should be
established on a case by case basis, it is recommended that magnetometer
spacing not exceed 30 m (100 ft). This spacing increases the possibility of
detecting the smallest of targets. A transect spacing justification (e.g.,
density of archaeological sites in area, inaccessibility) for all forms of
remote sensing should accompany the cultural resources survey report.
ii. Any magnetic target that produces an
anomaly greater than 20 to 25 gammas, covers an area greater than 15 meters, or
produces a complex signature should be viewed a second time. A justification
for any subsequent viewing, or a decision not to reexamine an anomaly such as
this, must accompany the survey report.
iii. Additional survey lines (normally
perpendicular to the original survey) should be run across targets deemed to be
of interest. These supplementary lines provide additional data on the character
of the target, as well as aid in the development of magnetic contour
maps.
g. Terrestrial
Surveys:
i. In some cases, a terrestrial
survey of bank lines may provide supplementary data to the information
generated during the underwater survey. Examples of such data include the
locations of vessels partially covered by bank lines, associated structures
such as docking or landing facilities, and sunken vessels abandoned at or near
these facilities. In addition, terrestrial surveys provide access to shore
lines deemed inaccessible by boat due to heavy vegetation or low water (For
information concerning appropriate survey methods see Terrestrial Cultural
Resources Survey section).
ii.
Archaeologists are also encouraged to use hand-held magnetometers when
conducting these bank line and shallow water terrestrial surveys. This is
especially true in river settings where magnetic targets are observed trending
under the bank.
E. Phase II:
1. Submerged Cultural Resource Testing and
Evaluation: The primary objective of the Phase II investigation is to determine
if the site in question is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (note: Phase I and II underwater investigations are sometimes
combined into a single activity. The governing/contracting agency is
responsible for ensuring that a scope of work exists in which the specific
tasks are outlined and that the proper officials are notified). Unlike
terrestrial archaeological sites, National Register eligibility for most
submerged cultural resources will be determined using most of the established
Criterion, as opposed to just Criterion D (see National Register Bulletin 36).
However, as with terrestrial sites, In order to determine the
significance of a site [under Criterion D], enough subsurface investigation
must be done to establish the potential for information that can be used to
formulate and answer research questions in regard to a regional context (Bense
et al. 1986:56). Investigation objectives include, but are not limited
to:
a. the vertical and horizontal
extent of intact archaeological deposits within each site;
b. the density and distribution of the
archaeological deposits within each site;
c. the cultural affiliation of the components
represented at each site;
d. the
presence of undisturbed submerged features or buried stratified deposits at
each site;
e. the classes of
archaeological remains retrievable; and
f. whether the site is eligible for inclusion
in the National Register. Phase II investigations should not be initiated
without consultation with MDAH-SHPO.
2. Fieldwork Guidelines: The fieldwork
methodology and areas to be investigated should be decided on an individual
project basis. However, the selected methodology should focus only on data
relative to research questions of potential importance as they pertain to
evaluating National Register significance. The following list, however,
provides basic guidelines that should assist the archaeologist in retrieving
adequate information:
a. General:
i. Since it is practically impossible to
adequately identify and assess the significance of submerged cultural resources
based solely on the generated remote-sensing data, some form of diving will
probably be required during Phase II investigations. Because diver safety is a
prime concern, MDAH-SHPO requires that the principal investigator submit an
Underwater Dive Safety Plan to the governing/contracting agency for approval
prior to any diving activity (For additional information on operating in a safe
manner, the principal investigator should become familiar with the 1996 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual). This Plan
should address: accident management, hazardous activities analyses, operating
procedures, and equipment selection and use. Diver standards should meet or
exceed the minimum required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition,
the principal investigator/contracting firm will ensure that: divers are
medically fit to dive; experienced at diving depths; experienced at tasks to be
performed; and experienced with the equipment to be used. All divers, including
standby divers, should be qualified divers, as well as knowledgeable in
archaeological methodology for submerged cultural resources. A record of all
dives should be kept by a timekeeper.
ii. Written records should be maintained
throughout the course of the study. Test units and other identification
techniques, as well as identified anomalies should be photographically
recorded, if possible.
iii. All
field investigations must use a permanent reference grid.
iv. Field methods should employ terrestrial
and underwater archaeological methods, as applicable. These methods include,
but are not be limited to, remote-sensing surveying, probing, hydroprobing,
underwater diving, surface excavation, systematic structural recordation, and
the stabilization and conservation of recovered artifacts.
v. All instrument data should be recorded in
concert with a Differential Global Positioning System (GPS).
vi. Provide location of Phase II testing on
7.5 USGS topographic map.
b. Testing:
i. Work conducted during the Phase I
submerged cultural resources survey should have identified the archaeological
propertys boundaries and artifact concentrations. However, due to
uncontrollable forces (e.g., current, fishing activities) some targets may
move, and therefore the re-establishment of the targets location via
remote-sensing technologies is suggested.
ii. Physical examination of the target by a
diver may be required in certain situations. If the target is buried,
examination of the target with a stainless steel probe or a hydraulic probe can
provide insights on target dimensions, configuration, depth, condition,
etc.
iii. If deemed necessary,
excavations should only be to the extent that provides adequate data to make
the necessary assessment of the submerged cultural resource. Because underwater
investigations can be costly and time-consuming, sampling strategies should be
employed, thereby limiting work to the minimum necessary to make the required
assessments and determinations. However, each site is different and the
archaeological methodology used, the areas of the property tested, and the
percentage of the site sampled should be decided on an individual site
basis.
iv. Equipment (e.g., air
lift, water jet, hydraulic venturi dredge) needs should be tailored to the
specific project with justifications for the selection and utilization of this
equipment outlined in the report.
v. Priority should be given to accurately
mapping the distribution of submerged resources (e.g., artifact concentrations,
vessel features).
vi. Information
on site conditions, precise limits, chronological placement, structural
integrity, dimensional data, and watercraft type and identity, if possible,
should be obtained.
vii. Data
recovery techniques should adhere to professional standards. A primary goal is
a physical examination and documentation of vessel construction. It is
recommended that at least three cross sections of each hull be completely
inspected and documented for the purpose of analyzing construction techniques
and materials.
viii. Information
should be collected regarding historic watercraft known to have traveled the
projects area of potential effects and should include, but not be limited to,
newspaper accounts, handbills, and enrollment certificates. Typical schematic
drawings of watercraft construction plans that are similar to types located in
the project area should be included in the report.
ix. A datum must be established at each site
and measurements should be controlled and referenced by this point. Probing
will be useful in locating hull remains and machinery. Probing by hand or with
a water jet will determine the amount of sediment overburden and will aid in
optimum placement of excavation units (or trenches).
x. Each excavation unit should be cleared
until evidence of hull remains or machinery is encountered. The units should be
placed in such a manner as to ensure maximum retrieval of data. The inferred
locations of the bow and stern should be examined, if possible, to determine
the orientation of the vessel/s. The proper location of these test units should
reveal construction details about the ships hull, deck, and
machinery.
xi. A detailed and
accurate map of the exposed portions of each hull should be made to determine
exact horizontal site limits, detect artifact densities, and assess the
relationship between areas. Plan drawings or sketches should be made from test
excavations to illustrate the location of artifacts, structural members,
machinery, and hull layouts.
xii.
If a vessel type was built for a specific use, its relationship to a specific
historical context should be assessed. Documentation of former enrollment
records and registries should be researched. The integrity of each vessel needs
to be thoroughly documented, discussing original form, materials, workmanship,
and changes.
xiii. A detailed and
accurate map of the extant portions of each hull should be made to determine
exact horizontal site limits, detect artifact densities, and assess the
relationship between areas. Plan and profile drawings should be made from test
excavations to illustrate the location of artifacts, structural members,
machinery, and hull layouts. Historic plans, drawings, and photographs should
be reproduced or prepared to visually represent each vessel. Views of deck
plans, inboard/outboard profiles, and hull and longitudinal sections should be
included. These drawings of existing portions and representative samples of
each vessel should be drawn to show methods of construction and individual
features. See the National Park Services Guidelines for Recording
Historic Ships (1988) for additional information.
F. Phase III:
1. Mitigation of Submerged Cultural Resource:
The mitigation of impacts or effects on a significant (i.e., National Register
eligible) property can take several forms. For example, relocating, changing,
or modifying the proposed project is one way to avoid impacting an eligible
archaeological site. Although the site may not be preserved in the long run,
this action can eliminate imminent impacts and adverse effects associated with
the original project. This step incorporates the property into the project in a
non-destructive manner.
However, when avoidance of a significant property is
impractical and partial or total destruction is unavoidable, an agreement to
conduct data recovery (i.e., complete site excavation) is usually reached (see
Section 110b of NHPA). This plan is usually a continuation and expansion of
Phase II activities. The data recovery plan should be detailed, discussing and
justifying the design of the investigation which will retrieve the data, what
research questions will be addressed, the proposed analysis and the expected
results, and a justification for the expenditure of public money on the data
recovery project should be clearly stated. If the recovery plan is unusually
complex, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between participating agencies
should be used. Mitigation recovery projects may not proceed without
consultation with MDAH-SHPO and the development of the appropriate written
agreement. Whatever is decided, this plan should be consistent with the
principles set forth in Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106, the
Secretary of the Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation
Projects, and the Participants Desk Reference issued by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in 1995.
2. Report Guidelines:
a. All final cultural resources survey (Phase
I), testing (Phase II), and mitigation (Phase III) reports should be in
narrative form, including a clear and concise presentation of project purposes,
methods, results, and recommendations. Phase I cultural resources surveys
should discuss positive and negative findings. Phase II archaeological testing
reports should address three aspects:
i. a
description of the study and results of fieldwork and laboratory
analyses,
ii. an assessment of the
presence and nature of the encountered archaeological deposits, and
iii. an evaluation of the National Register
of Historic Places eligibility of each site in conjunction with recommendations
for further work. In addition to the these three aspects, Phase III
archaeological mitigation reports should also
iv. answer in detail all research questions
outlined in the data recovery plan and the MOA, if applicable.
Facsimiles of reports will not be accepted by MDAH-SHPO. In
addition, all reports submitted to MDAH-SHPO are subject to peer review prior
to approval and clearance. Furthermore, all final reports submitted to
MDAH-SHPO for review should adhere to the guidelines listed below or be subject
to hold and/or rejection. Whenever it is impossible to follow any guideline, an
explanation should be provided in the report.
3. Phase I - Cultural Resources
Survey:
a. Reports must be in narrative form
and fully address the questions proposed in the research design.
b. Reports must be submitted on acid free
paper.
c. Reports must provide
survey commencement and termination dates, as well as specify actual number of
days in the field.
d. Reports must
provide number of personnel that participated in field work and lab
analysis.
e. Reports must provide
descriptions of field conditions, such as visibility, for both underwater and
terrestrial archaeological investigations.
f
.Reports must provide total number of hectares (acres) surveyed.
g. Reports must provide discussion
of field methods and results explicitly addressing negative as well as positive
findings.
h. Reports must include
clear copies of relevant sections of 7.5 USGS topographic quadrangle maps with
the precise locations and boundaries of areas surveyed and sites discovered
prior to and during the course of the survey indicated thereon. This map must
be clearly labeled with the quadrangle name. Any possible pre-World War II
standing structures located in the project area during the survey must be
reported and their locations indicated on the appropriate 7.5 USGS topographic
quadrangles. A completed Historic Resources Inventory (e.g., standing
structure, monument, bridge) form, including photograph, for each such resource
must be submitted as part of the report. Forms can be obtained by writing the:
Architectural History Section
Mississippi Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 571
Jackson, Mississippi, 39205-0571
or phoning 601-359-6940.
i. Use assigned state site number/s
(trinomials) when referring to archaeological sites in the report. A completed
or updated state archaeological site form for each site must be submitted as
part of the report. Archaeological site cards can be obtained by writing the:
Archaeology Section
Mississippi Department of Archives and History
P. O. Box 571
Jackson, MS 39205-0571
or phoning 601-359-6940.
Site forms may be submitted to SHPO prior to report
preparation for number assignation.
j. Descriptions of archaeological sites must
include sufficient information on location, setting, extent (length, width,
depth, etc.), regional chronological positions and cultural affiliations (when
possible), intact deposits encountered, degree and types of disturbances
observed, to evaluate whether additional investigation is warranted to
determine their National Register eligibility. A statement should be made on
how further investigations of the site could lead to a better understanding of
the areas past.
k. All newly
located and previously recorded sites investigated/revisited during the survey,
that are recommended for additional investigations should be illustrated in the
report by means of a sketch map/plan with northing arrow and scale, showing
topographic features and any identifiable permanent landmarks, as well as the
spatial relationship to the project. The spacing of transects and shovel tests
(both positive and negative) should also be noted on these maps.
l. Reports pertaining to underwater research
must also include: a post-plot map illustrating the actual track of the survey
vessel; position and contour map of all magnetic targets of interest; examples
of pertinent side-scan sonar and bathymetric/fathometer records; and a table
providing information on the location and characteristics of each target of
interest with recommended treatments.
m. Classify artifactual remains using
existing regional typologies as applicable. In addition, the report must
include a tabulation of all artifacts and archaeobotanical and
zooarchaeological remains collected from the site.
n. Illustrate recovered diagnostic artifacts
or an appropriate sample.
o.
Archaeologists should express opinions as to the nature of each site village,
quarry, hunting camp, extinct town, etc., and how this opinion was formed. If
such a determination cannot be made, an explanation for the lack of
determination should be included in the report.
p. Archaeologists must evaluate the effects
of the project on each site identified.
q. Archaeologists should suggest alternatives
or steps to avoid or mitigate effects to any potentially eligible or eligible
National Register site/s that will be affected by the project.
r. The report must be signed and should
include the addresses (postal and email, if applicable) and telephone numbers
of the principal investigator and field director/s.
4. Phase II Archaeological Testing:
a. Reports should be in narrative form and
fully address the questions proposed in the research design.
b. Reports must be submitted on acid free
paper.
c. Reports must provide
testing commencement and termination dates, as well as specify actual number of
days in the field.
d. Reports must
provide number of personnel that participated in the field work and lab
analysis.
e. Reports must provide
the percentage of the archaeological property tested, as well as a
justification for the sampling strategy.
f. Reports must provide discussion of field
methods and results explicitly addressing negative as well as positive
findings.
g. In addition to
including 7.5 USGS topographic maps showing location of testing, reports must
also include a large scale topographic map of the site with all controlled
surface collection, shovel test, excavation unit, backhoe trench, and other
investigative method locations portrayed in relation to permanent datum. A
variety of other maps may also be required if conducting underwater research
(e.g., magnetic).
h. Reports must
include plan and profile illustrations for all test excavation units and
features encountered.
i. Use
assigned state site number/s (trinomials) when referring to archaeological
sites in the report.
j. Classify
artifactual remains using existing regional typologies as applicable. In
addition, the report must include a tabulation (counts and weights, as
applicable) of all artifacts and archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains
collected from the site.
k.
Archaeologists should provide detailed information about the nature of the
components represented at sitevillage, quarry, hunting camp, extinct town,
etc.,state how this opinion was formed, and provide regional cultural
designations and chronological positions for encountered deposits and the site
as a whole.
l. Archaeologists must
provide a determination concerning the significance of the site (i.e., is it
eligible for the National Register) and whether the site merits preservation.
Provide rationale and justification for this determination, as well as explain
how the site meets the National Register criteria (e.g. Bulletin 20:
Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of
Historic Places).
m.
Archaeologists must evaluate the effect of the project on each site
tested.
n. Archaeologists should
justify all suggested mitigation measures. If data recovery investigations are
recommended, a research design should be provided detailing specific research
questions to be addressed, along with citations of relevant literature
supporting the importance of these questions to the current body of
anthropological knowledge. However, if the site/s under consideration are
determined ineligible, reasons supporting this conclusion should also be
included.
o. The report must be
signed and should include the addresses (postal and email, if applicable) and
telephone numbers of the principal investigator and field director/s.
5. Phase III Mitigation:
a. Reports must present in detail the
investigative methods employed.
b.
Reports must be in narrative form and fully address the questions proposed in
the research design.
c. Reports
must be written on acid free paper
d. Reports must provide mitigation
commencement and termination dates, as well as actual days spent in the
field.
e. Reports must provide the
number of personnel that participated in the field work and lab
analysis.
f. Reports must provide
the percentage of the archaeological property mitigated, as well as a
justification for this percentage (e.g., Was only a section of the site
adversely affected?).
g. Reports
must provide discussion of field methods and results explicitly addressing
negative as well as positive findings.
h. In addition to including 7.5 USGS
topographic maps showing location of mitigation, reports must include a large
scale topographic (or magnetic, for example, if research pertains to submerged
resources) map of the site with all excavation/sampling units
portrayed.
i. Use the assigned
state site number/s (trinomials) when referring to archaeological sites in the
report.
j. Classify artifactual
remains using existing regional typologies as applicable. In addition, the
report must include a tabulation (counts and weights, as applicable) of all
artifacts and archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains collected from the
site.
k. Archaeologists should
provide detailed information about the nature of the sitevillage, quarry,
hunting camp, extinct town, logging schooner, etc.,state how this opinion was
formed and provide regional cultural designations and chronological positions
for encountered deposits and the site as a whole.
l. Archaeologists should provide the
rationale for the mitigation project. All research questions should be answered
in specific detail, along with citations of relevant literature supporting the
importance of these questions and their results to the current body of
anthropological knowledge.
m. The
report must be signed and should include the addresses (postal and email, if
applicable) and telephone numbers of the principal investigator and field
director/s.
G. Example Report Outline for Phase I, II,
and III Investigations:
1.
Title
Page (e.g., title; author/s; organization, agency and/or client;
contract number; date of report completion)
2.
Management Summary
3.
Table of Contents
4.
Introduction (e.g., project
purpose and goals, such as a summary of the scope of work, including applicable
regulations or permits as known; project administration and contracting agency;
general description, including location, number of person days in the field,
and project conditions or constraints).
5.
Background Research (e.g.,
environmental setting; summary of paleoenvironment and present climate and
vegetation conditions; past and present land uses and current conditions;
overview of prehistoric and historic (including navigation history, if
applicable) cultural history, of the local project area, including project
specific site; review of known sites, previous investigations and research in
the project area and vicinity, and information provided by local collectors;
primary documentary research for the project area, including historic maps,
deeds, or other pertinent information). This section should provide the context
for research questions, survey methods, site evaluations and further
recommendations.
6.
Research
Design (e.g., research objectives and theoretical context, using the
historic contexts outlined in the States Historic Contexts Document and other
relevant references; specific research problems or questions; methods to be
employed to address these research objectives and questions; a discussion of
the expected results, including hypotheses to be tested as part of the current
investigation).
7.
Methods (e.g., description of field and laboratory methods
employed, including rationale, discussion of biases, problems or obstacles
encountered, as applicable; an estimated percentage of total project area
investigated, with discussion of sampling design and rationale; discussion of
changes made during fieldwork from the stated methods and the rationale for
these changes).
8.
Field
Results (e.g., clear description of all areas investigated, including
those where resources were not recovered or observed; discussion of soils and
stratigraphy, including areas and types of disturbance, if applicable; site
topography and stratigraphy, size, noted structures or features, and artifact
types and density; maps, figures, and original photographs of test locations,
features, and soil profiles, as needed; original photographs of individual
standing building and photographs of streetscapes, if applicable).
9.
Artifact Analysis (e.g.,
detailed descriptions and results of analyses used; original photographs or
drawings of selected or representative artifacts, including scale; a complete
inventory of artifacts by provenience and class should be included; tables or
other summary information; identification of the final artifact collection and
project notes repository).
10.
Interpretations/Conclusions (e.g., discussion of the results in
terms of the background cultural context, research design and goals, and stated
research problems; discussion of constraints and reliability of methods;
discussion of future potential research problems based on results and
conclusions; and assessment on whether further work should be conducted at the
site).
11.
Recommendations (e.g., a statement on whether the site is eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places?).
Conclusions: This document provides basic
guidelines for conducting and reporting Phase I, II, and III archaeological
investigations in Mississippi. However, it is important to remember that this
document will be subject to modification as times goes by. As cultural resource
management laws and regulations, archaeological theory and techniques, as well
as the publics attitude toward cultural resources change, the document itself
will evolve to reflect these changes. For now, however, it is hoped these
guidelines will assist archaeologists and agency administrators in developing
research designs capable of retrieving sufficient amounts of data that will
address the identification and evaluation of cultural resources and the
development and implementation of appropriate mitigation proposals.
Acknowledgements: Although this document
relies heavily upon currently available archaeological methodologies,
literature, and legislation, it could not have been completed without the
participation of the states professional community. Many provided comments,
suggestions, and support during the drafting of these guidelines to which I am
very grateful. In particular, I would like to thank MDAH-SHPO staff
archaeologists Sam McGahey, Keith Baca, and John Connaway, as well as review
and compliance officer Roger Walker for reviewing and commenting on numerous
drafts. Special thanks go to Tad Britt, Steve James, and Charles Pearson for
providing invaluable information and insights on the world of underwater
archaeology. Others providing critical commentary include Phil Carr, John
OHear, Melissa Reams, and David Fant, all part of a special Mississippi
Association of Professional Archaeologists sub-committee, as well as Elizabeth
Boggess, Joseph Giliberti, Cliff Jenkins, David Kelley, Robert Lafferty, James
Lauro, Baxter Mann, Evan Peacock, Janet Rafferty, Nancy Ross-Stallings, Richard
Stallings and Mary Evelyn Starr. Without participation from these
professionals: academicians, governmental officials, and contractors alike,
development and compilation of these guidelines could not have been
possible.
References.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1980 Treatment of Archeological Properties: A
Handbook. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington,
D.C.
1986 Working with Section 106: Section 106,
Step-by-Step. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington,
D.C.
1989 Working with Section 106: Preparing Agreement
Documents. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington,
D.C.
Alabama Historical Commission
1996 Alabama Historical Commission Policy for Archaeological
Survey and Testing in Alabama. Manuscript on file at the Alabama Historical
Commission, Alabama State Historic Preservation Office, Montgomery.
Anderson, Richard K.
1988 Guidelines for Recording Historic
Ships. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Ashmore, Wendy and Robert J. Sharer
1988 Discovering Our Past: A Brief Introduction to
Archaeology. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View,
California.
Bense, Judith A., Hester A. Davis, Lorraine Heartfield, and
Kathleen Deagan
1986 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Control in
Archaeological Resource Management in the Southeastern United States.
Southeastern Archaeology 5(1):56-62.
Bruce, Kevin, Philip Carr, Cliff Jenkins, and Bruce
Gray
1998 Request for Proposals: Phase II Testing of
Archaeological Sites 22Lw616, 22Lw617, 22Lw618, 22Lw619, 22Lw620, 22Lw621, and
22Lw622, in Conjunction with the Proposed Widening and Realigning of U.S.
Highway 84 from the East end of the Monticello Bypass to the Lincoln/Lawrence
County line, in Lawrence County, Mississippi (MDOT Project No.
97-0015-01-077-10). Manuscript on file at the Mississippi Department of
Transportation, Archaeology Section, Jackson.
Carr, Philip, Cliff Jenkins, Kevin Bruce, and Bruce
Gray
1998 Request for Proposals: Phase III Mitigation of
Archaeological Site 22Ok973, in Conjunction with the Proposed Four-Laning of
Mississippi Highway 25, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Manuscript on file at
the Mississippi Department of Transportation, Archaeology Section,
Jackson.
Davis, Hester A., editor.
1982 A State Plan for the Conservation of
Archeological Resources in Arkansas. Arkansas
Archeological Survey Research Series 21.
Georgia State Historic Preservation Office
1993 Archaeological Assessment Report Guidelines and
Components. Manuscript on file at the Department of Natural Resources, Historic
Preservation Division, State Historic Preservation Office, Atlanta.
Harper, Herbert L. and Nick Fielder
1995 Tennessee SHPO Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management
Studies. Manuscript on file at the Tennessee Historical
Commission, Nashville.
Jackson, H. Edwin
n.d. University of Southern Mississippis 1991 Archaeology
Field School: Field and Laboratory Procedures. Manuscript on file at The
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office
1990 Specifications for Archaeological Fieldwork and
Assessment Reports. Manuscript on file at the Kentucky State Historic
Preservation Office, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfurt.
King, Thomas F.
1978 The Archeological Survey: Methods and
Uses. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington D.C.
1998 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice, an
Introductory Guide. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
McGahey, Samuel O.
n. d. State of Mississippi Guidelines for Cultural Resource
Survey Reports. Revised 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998.
Manuscript on file at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History,
Jackson.
Moore, James M.
1996 Request for Proposals: Phase I Archaeological Survey.
Proposed Improvements to Walker Springs Road/Gallaher View Road, from North of
Interstate 40 to State Route 169 in Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee.
Manuscript on file at the Tennessee Department of Transportation,
Nashville.
1996 Request for Proposals: Phase II Testing of
Archaeological Sites 40Sl185, 40Sl187, and 40Sl192, Sullivan County. In
Conjunction with the Proposed Improvements Proposed State Route 93 (South
Wilcox Drive) from South of SR-347 to South Gaylemont Drive in Sullivan
Gardens, Sullivan County, Tennessee. Manuscript on file at the Tennessee
Department of Transportation, Nashville.
New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office
1990 Guidelines for the Preparation of Cultural Resources
Management Archaeological Reports Submitted to the Office of New Jersey
Heritage. Manuscript on file at the Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Parks and Forestry, Office of New Jersey Heritage, Trenton.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
1982 Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of
Archeological Surveys and Evaluations. Manuscript on file at the North Carolina
Archeology and Historic Preservation Section, Division of Archives and History,
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
1991 Cultural Resource Management in Pennsylvania: Guidelines
for Archaeological Investigations. Manuscript on file at the Bureau for
Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Prentice, Guy
1991 Field Procedures Manual for the Big South Fork River and
Recreation Area Archaeological Resource Survey Project 1991 Field Season.
Manuscript on file at the Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park
Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Schiffer, Michael B. and George J. Gumerman
1977 Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural
Resource Management Studies.
Academic Press, Inc., New York.
South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
n.d. Guidelines and Standards for Archaeological
Investigations. Manuscript on file at the State Historic Preservation Office,
Review and Compliance Branch, South Carolina Department of Archives and
History, Columbia.
Tennessee Division of Archaeology
1997 Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Permit
Application. Manuscript on file at the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Nashville.
Texas Historical Commission
1995 A Guide to Archeological Survey Standards for Texas:
Draft for CTA Review.
Document Prepared by the Department of Antiquities
Protection, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
Thomas, David Hurst
1989 Archaeology. 2nd Edition. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas.
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
1998 Scope of Work for Limited Survey and National Register
of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluations of all Bridges, Structures and
Targets 4-6, 4-7, 4-11, 4-12, 4-15, and 4-16 Located within Item 4 of the Upper
Yazoo Projects, LeFlore County, Mississippi. Vicksburg District.
United States Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment
1987 Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and
Maritime PreservationBackground
Paper, OTA-BP-E-37.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Mississippi Historic Preservation Grants Guide for
Survey, Planning, Pre-Development and Development Activities. REPEALED.
Effective 10/16/2009.
Mississippi Historic Preservation Professional Review
Board Bylaws. REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and
Reports in Mississippi. REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Procedure for amending grant projects scopes of work,
provided amendments dont affect allocated funds amounts. REPEALED. Effective
10/16/2009.
Guidelines for Section 106 Reviews of Cellular Tower
Sites. REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Policy prohibiting staff archaeologists from conducting
private surveys. REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Certified Local Government Guidelines and Regulations
Amendment: include churches as potential applicants. REPEALED. Effective
10/16/2009.
Certified Local Government Program Regulations.
REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Mississippi Historic Preservation Professional Review
Board Guidelines. REPEALED. Effective 10/16/2009.
Policy on the Preparation of National Register
nominations by Department staff members on a consultant basis. REPEALED.
Effective 10/16/2009.
Reinstatement of the state historical marker program,
including steps to improve the programs efficiency. REPEALED. Effective
10/16/2009.
